View more from the

The past three decades have been a time of increasing informality in the American workplace. It’s easy to characterize this growing comfort with the casual as a positive step for workplace culture, an outgrowth of the American democratic belief in workers’ equality. Informal environments are said to be more trusting and open, and workers who are free to express their personalities are more comfortable and thus more creative—right?

According to etiquette guru Judith Martin—known far and wide as Miss Manners—informality in the workplace may do more harm than good. Without some formality in social intercourse, Miss Manners argues, human interactions end up being governed by laws, which are too heavy-handed to serve as a guide through the nuances of personal—or professional—behavior.

Since our earliest beginnings, we have developed formal rules to accompany shared human experiences, such as eating and mourning. Yet, says Miss Manners, something in us rebels against form and etiquette, and every so often, an antimanners movement takes hold, and people come to believe that following etiquette is unnatural. One recent such movement has led to the belief that a distinction between our work life and our professional life is unnecessary. If we hope to reassure our customers that we are indeed professional, however, we need to be aware of the boundaries of professional behavior. On the whole, Miss Manners argues, informality in the workplace leads to a host of problems, from making employees feel pressured to “socialize” with coworkers during weekends and evenings to sexual harassment.

Despite the shortcomings of informality in the American workplace, though, Miss Manners believes that we have the best code of manners the world has ever seen—in theory. In practice, American etiquette is undoubtedly still a work in progress.

Business environments have become much less formal than they once were. The dark suits and ties of the 1960s have been replaced with polo shirts, chinos, and loafers. Everyone is on a first name basis, and the boss’s door is always open. An army of consultants and HR officers make it their business to transform the workplace into a less forbidding setting, often using informal off-sites or games to break down social barriers between colleagues.

This informality originated with the American democratic belief that everyone is equally valuable, and it has taken hold throughout the business world as America’s global presence and MBA-style education has spread. Yet informality in the workplace is becoming more common for another reason. Informal environments, many organizational experts argue, are more open and trusting. And with the freedom to “be themselves,” workers are more comfortable and more creative. From that perspective, it’s easy to characterize etiquette and formality as European vices that America’s immigrant forebears did well to leave behind.

The irony is that many of the most successful challenges to American business have come from countries and companies that champion etiquette in the workplace. Company life in Japan, for example, is governed by intricate rules that often appear stilted to the outsider. Just think of the elaborate rituals of business card exchange, where the act of presenting and receiving cards reflects different levels of respect. While the famously hierarchical structure of Japanese society may not be fertile ground for the rags-to-riches stories in which America delights, it is Japanese-style work practices that have arguably played the greatest role in empowering the American worker. And Japan is not the only country to successfully combine business performance with etiquette. China, too, places a premium on formal manners, as do the Germans, who get down to first names at work only after using five honorifics.

So has the American workplace become too informal for its own good? To gain some insight into this question, HBR senior editor Diane L. Coutu visited etiquette writer and syndicated columnist Judith Martin in Washington, DC. Raised there and in foreign capitals, Martin, known to millions of Americans as Miss Manners, has been writing about etiquette for more than 25 years. During that time, she has published ten books on the subject, including best sellers such as Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior and Miss Manners’ Guide to Rearing Perfect Children, as well as the recently published Star-Spangled Manners: In Which Miss Manners Defends American Etiquette (For a Change).

In the following interview, edited for clarity and length, Martin makes a compelling case that business needs more etiquette, not less. Without some formality in social intercourse, she argues, human interactions end up being governed by laws, which are too blunt to guide people through the nuances of personal—or professional—behavior.

Erasmus wrote about etiquette. So did Thomas Jefferson. What is so riveting about the subject?

It is the basic question of civilization: How we should treat one another? Erasmus was a relative latecomer; Socrates was asking such questions long before. When you study philosophy, history, or anthropology, you come to understand that all societies develop formal rules—sometimes complicated ones—around basic human experiences such as eating and dying.

Yet there seems to be something in us that rebels against form and etiquette. Every 200 years or so, an antimanners movement surfaces in which leaders urge us to be ourselves—whatever that means—and break free of the shackles of form and tradition. The basic idea behind these movements seems to be that we should return to some state of nature that existed before etiquette. But to assume that etiquette is an invention of advanced civilizations is absurd. The more primitive a society, the more precise its etiquette. Cannibalistic tribes, for example, have created elaborate rituals around their feasts. More fundamentally, it is false to argue that artificiality is unnatural and bad. Indeed, the whole point of etiquette is precisely its artificiality, which helps us deal with the extremes of human emotion by expressing them in a way that others can tolerate.

We have recently come out of one such naturalistic phase, which was characterized by a strong denial of the rituals surrounding death. We had gotten used to hearing things like, “Why go to the funeral? He’s dead and won’t care. He would have wanted me to go to my tennis game and enjoy myself.” That kind of thinking ended on September 11, 2001. The sacrifices made by America’s firefighters and police officers and the losses suffered by the victims’ families brought back a respect for people’s lives and deaths. People suddenly started wearing black to funerals again.

Is etiquette in trouble at the workplace?

It is, partly because of that naturalism. An inevitable and unfortunate part of the “I want to be me” movement has been the idea that there is no distinction between your business life and your personal life. People treat colleagues as friends and family—often to disastrous effect. Sexual harassment is a prime example. If you flirt with somebody at a party, that person can’t have you arrested. But if you flirt at the office, it could cost you your job. Well, flirting at work has always been unmannerly. The distance of formality should make it obvious that office flirtation is wrong. But because people don’t care about etiquette anymore, we have to use the law to make them obey. That is not trivial for the people involved. An exposed office flirt was once just a cad. Now someone who misunderstands the limits of office friendship could become a criminal with a record. The problem with many of today’s workplace issues is that they are too subtle and nuanced for the law, which is a very heavy-handed instrument. But if people don’t obey the rules of etiquette, we have no choice but to use the law.

Unfortunately, the pseudofriendliness, personal e-mails, and office collections for the umpteenth bridal or baby shower have destroyed the sense of boundaries that characterizes professional behavior. If we hope to reassure our customers that we are indeed professional, we need to be aware of those boundaries. But in our relationships with colleagues, we also need to acknowledge that we are often too distant from our coworkers to be able to resolve problems on a personal level. At home, if your stereo is too loud, your partner feels free to say, “Honey, will you turn that thing down? It’s driving me crazy.” And you will know him well enough to answer, “Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you were trying to read.” But at work, if the person in the next cubicle is being loud, you can’t really solve the problem with that sort of exchange, because the worker in the next cube is not a friend of yours. That’s where office etiquette comes in. Setting formal limits to behavior reduces the chance of conflict from the outset. Rules decree whether or not you can play music or take personal calls in open space. We need such limits to keep people from upsetting one another unnecessarily.

Interestingly, the kind of professional demeanor I am arguing for is found in people who are having an affair in the workplace and don’t want anybody to know about it. They often keep that formal aloofness.

You talk a lot about setting boundaries. But Jack Welch often spoke about making General Electric boundaryless. Do you think he was wrong?

Yes. My views are the exact opposite of Mr. Welch’s. I want formality back so we can all regain some dignity. Besides, employees were never taken in by all that talk about informality. On one hand, the boss was firing people; on the other, he was saying, “Oh, we’re just like family.” And employees thought, “Oh no we’re not!” Now, I know some executives believe that informality will help put more flexibility and truth into the system. But I am one of those people who believes that we have quite enough honesty in the world, and I’m not looking for more. Oddly, in today’s social realm, honesty seems to trump every other moral value. Truth has become so overblown in situations of criminal wrongdoing that people will say, “Well, I don’t mind that he did this or that, but then he lied about it”—as if the lie were the worst part, which it is not. I’m not recommending lying, but I am saying that you have to judge a lie within the context of other values. And whether you are in a business or a social setting, it is not valuable to go around all the time spewing your own truths, which are often mere opinions. Of course, there are times when honesty is terribly important, and certainly in a fact-gathering situation in an organization, honesty is critical. But let’s face it: It isn’t etiquette that keeps people from telling the truth to the boss, it’s the fear of losing their job. We all know what the boss likes. If he’s the kind of person who wants you to tell him what’s going on, then you’re going to keep him well informed. But if he hired you as a yes-man, then it isn’t etiquette that will hold you back from getting the facts across. After all, there are polite ways for employees to raise issues. You don’t necessarily have to say, “I think you’re stealing.” Instead you might say, “We’re having a little trouble. The office supplies keep disappearing.”

When someone asked me how to be rude to his mother-in-law without getting caught, I replied that the only way to do that is by being extremely polite.

Let’s look at some specific issues. Is talking about money ever vulgar in a business situation?

The business world deals in money, so it is certainly not vulgar to discuss it. True, at one time there were fewer women in the workplace, and men would never let women pay for business lunches. So I would have all these women asking, “How do I pay a business bill? Should I go to the restaurant and pay the bill before he sees it?” Things have improved a bit since then; today’s women feel free to pay for meals. But we still have a long way to go. Research shows that women feel they can’t ask the boss for a raise. But talking about money at work is only vulgar if it gets too personal. Asking the boss for a raise is not the same as asking her how much she paid for her dress.

I think bosses need to spend more time talking about money with their employees, not less. There is still this ridiculous charade that goes on between bosses and their employees at Christmas. Even big-name executives will ask me, “So what do I get my assistant for Christmas?” And I’ll say, “How should I know? And how should you know? You probably shouldn’t be so close to your assistant that you know her taste in perfume. Give her a bonus instead.” Presents such as clothing and perfume are highly symbolic and, hence, inappropriate. If you work for me and I give you a bigger desk, that’s office symbolism, so that’s fine. But if I buy you a coat, I’ve crossed the boundaries of appropriateness. A good boss keeps things professional, showing approval with money, not presents. So instead of buying a Thanksgiving turkey for each employee—even for the vegetarians—he gives them a bonus.

Does entertaining have a place in business?

Business entertaining is an oxymoron. Asking people to labor without pay isn’t fair. Worse, it cuts into their personal lives. I originally came to this conclusion by observing the social lives of diplomats here in Washington. Entertaining in Washington is usually very high-level, very interesting. People get so used to it that they often want to retire here after they finish their careers. The ironic thing is that after they retire, they feel terribly cut off. But why should things be any different? Well, when they were using their country’s money or their company’s money, they were in a very desirable position. They weren’t being loved for who they were. Once they lost that power and influence, they were no longer so appealing. The unfortunate part is that these diplomats and senior executives often give up the opportunity to have real friends. You don’t have time to make friends if you’re out socializing every night with pseudofriends. And on a smaller scale, the same is true in business offices. It is a terrific imposition for a business to ask people to give up their weekends and their evenings for unpaid work. I get these pathetic letters from 70-year-old retired executives who say, “I worked for 40 years in this office, and everybody loved me. They gave me this huge party when I left. And now nobody calls me. What happened?” What happened, I say, is that your colleagues aren’t your friends—and they never were.

It’s taken us half a century to realize that when you remove everybody’s inhibitions, you create more problems than you solve.

So you also disapprove of business retreats?

Absolutely. I sincerely hope that we’re seeing the end of retreats. This personalization of business relationships is misguided. For one thing, it’s expensive to have people climb poles or shoot at one another with paint guns. But the more depressing thing is that it’s taken us half a century to realize that when you remove everybody’s inhibitions, you create more problems than you solve. Regrettably, the whole retreat thing started with touchy-feely consultants who believed that if we all loved one another, then good behavior would follow. Whatever made anyone believe that? Think about it: People marry because they love each other, and good behavior doesn’t necessarily follow. People love their children, and good behavior doesn’t necessarily follow. Love is no guarantee, and we certainly don’t love everybody in our business environment. At the height of this retreat business, I was president of the board at my children’s school. One gentleman kept proposing a retreat until finally I said, “You know my dear sir, you and I disagree on every possible issue within this school. But I give you the benefit of the doubt because I assume your good intentions, and I don’t know you that well. Do you want to remove all doubt?” That was the end of that. But I tell people who find themselves sitting around a campfire with coworkers, forced to reveal something personal about themselves, to limit their comments to something like, “I was fat and shy as a kid”—because that’s charming. Or, “I didn’t like my freckles.” Whatever you do, don’t reveal too much. You will come to regret it.

Since the mid-twentieth century, this country has been ruled by the idea that manners are bad for children because they inhibit them. Well of course they do—if we’re lucky.

You’ve written that etiquette condemns all rudeness. Is there no place for rudeness?

We all secretly recognize that being rude to a superior has a bit of reckless glamour to it. It at least does not violate the principle of noblesse oblige, whereby the powerful are expected to carry a heavier burden than the rest of us. But etiquette does not bar polite people from self-defense or let rude people walk all over them. When someone asked me how to be rude to his mother-in-law without getting caught, I replied that the only way to do that is by being extremely polite. The same is true in business: If you want to be rude to a customer or to someone on the board, the only way to do it—and get away with it—is to be extremely polite. By withdrawing into cold formality, you are telling the other person that you are not willing to deal with him in the same way that you would deal with someone of goodwill. This sort of polite withdrawal can take many forms, from exclusion from a luncheon invitation right up to the ultimate act of shunning. And while shunning is unpleasant, even devastating for the one shunned, it does not constitute rude behavior.

Let’s step back a bit. Who makes all these rules on etiquette?

In most cases, we don’t know. The rules are just handed down to us, often by people who try to imbue them with meaning they may never have had. For instance, people will tell you that men are always supposed to walk on the outside of the sidewalk because in the olden days the gutters were full of sewage and people walking on the inside were protected from it. There’s no evidence for that. In Europe, where those “olden days” took place, men today always walk to the left of women regardless of which side the gutter is on. And so it is with most rules of etiquette: When you examine them, you find that any logical meaning imputed to them is retroactive. We do things this way because this is the way we do them. Of course, everybody inherits the rules a little differently, and the rules do change over time to adjust to social, philosophical, and technological shifts.

In the few cases where we can correctly determine the provenance of a rule, we are usually surprised by what we learn. Some rules are actually the creation of opportunistic businessmen. Let me give you an example. In the mid-nineteenth century, a number of silver mines were built during the Industrial Revolution that suddenly put silver at the disposal of people who had hardly ever seen it. And because eating rituals are so closely tied to human identity, people got very interested in silver tableware. At the same time, a lot of new money was being created, and these newly wealthy people wanted a patina of respectability. This created an enormous opportunity for silverware companies, which started making specialty items—like terrapin forks and marrow scoops—that they convinced their new customers were essential to civilized living. The marketing tactics these companies employed have had a lasting impact: Even today, now that these items have disappeared from use, people still claim to worry about which fork to use first. (It’s the one on the far left.)

How do you learn the rules?

The particular conventions of each society have to be memorized. But the basic principle behind etiquette is thinking from the other person’s point of view, and you have to train for that in childhood. For a child, empathy is a counterintuitive lesson that must be taught and retaught from an early age. This doesn’t mean that a well-mannered child will naturally grow up to be empathetic. Maybe she will; maybe she won’t. But she will at least learn to behave as if she is, which will make her socially acceptable.

I can’t stress strongly enough the importance of child rearing. When I look at my mail, it’s clear that the number one problem facing American society today is greed. My mailbox is full of questions from the perpetrators and the victims of greed—from a bride who is angry about receiving a present that wasn’t on her registry to outright begging from friends for contributions to a vacation or college fund. I don’t blame the business world for this problem. Since the mid-twentieth century, this country has been ruled by the idea that manners are bad for children because they inhibit them. Well of course they do—if we’re lucky. That’s the idea. Etiquette is supposed to inhibit the instinct to act on our offensive impulses. That’s what civilization is all about.

That said, it’s important not to confuse learning etiquette with learning morals. Good manners may have a moral base, but they are not a moral system. The rationale is pragmatic. I take your feelings into consideration because I want you to take mine into consideration. If I am in business, I want you to trust me, because if you don’t, then you’re not going to do business with me. If you are a businessperson trying to outmaneuver somebody, then you benefit greatly from understanding the other person’s point of view, even if you’re not going to accommodate that person. Indeed, there are many well-mannered villains who can sweet-talk people into anything.

A final question: As America goes global, other countries fear that we will bring our culture and manners with us. What is so bad about American etiquette?

One problem we have is that other societies learn American manners through movies and television. But movies enact conflict; conflict is at the heart of drama. So learning American manners from American films is like learning traffic rules from watching car chases. In reality, we don’t allow speeding on our streets. We don’t allow people to careen down the road the wrong way, knock over a fruit stand, and jump over a bridge. But if you watched American movies, you would think we did. To be fair to Hollywood, if they had to produce well-behaved movies, people would be bored senseless. And in truth, we don’t lack manners—we just have a lot of rude people, as does every country. The Japanese, for instance, who have a very complicated code of etiquette, are having trouble getting their children to follow the rules. The British have horrendous problems with bad manners at all levels of society, from soccer hooligans to the royal family.

In our case, many violations of etiquette are actually exaggerations of our virtues. Our loudness, for example, reflects our friendliness. Or take the American tendency toward casual dress. In more-hierarchical societies, leaders had to create sumptuary laws to prevent people from getting too competitive about their appearance and clothing. In England, they introduced a tax on wig powder to discourage the conspicuous consumption of the upper classes. By contrast, the principle in America is that we have no class distinctions, so everyone can wear the same type of clothing. Of course, it is possible to have too much of a good thing, and our antihierarchical instincts have also eroded some very legitimate hierarchies within society among young and old, boss and employee. That erosion has repercussions that more-traditional societies can’t stomach.

Learning American manners from American films is like learning traffic rules from watching car chases.

It is important to distinguish between the theory and the practice of etiquette. America has—in theory—the best code of manners the world has ever seen. That’s because it is based on respect for the individual, regardless of his or her origin. Good manners in America are about helping strangers. They’re also about judging people on their qualities rather than on their backgrounds. These are principles that were deliberately worked out by our founding fathers to assure the dignity of the individual and to keep society nonhierarchical. Is this theory true in practice? Of course not; it’s a work in progress. But let us not forget that every day, more and more people wake up to the fact that they do not have to be limited by the circumstances of their birth. What’s so bad about spreading that?

Partner Center

The email and password entered aren’t matching to our records. Please try again, or reset your password. If you have a username from our previous site, start by using that. Please See our FAQ for more.

If you are signing in for the first time on the new HBR.org but have an existing account, please enter your existing user name and password to migrate your account.Please see Frequently Asked Questions for more information.